On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:42:08 +0200, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
wrote:
> Alex Danilo:
>> Something for the WG to argue. I'd say child <svg>'s should be
>> transformable since
>> that is far more likely to be useful to content authors. You could use
>> an <image> and
>> reference the child SVG that way and it would transform, so the
>> restriction on <svg>
>> should never be needed since you can rotate it too.
>>
>> So if you can apply current scale, translation and current rotation to
>> the root SVG
>> via the DOM there doesn't seem to be a good argument to limit the
>> transform for
>> child <svg> does it?
>
> Agreed. I sometimes find myself adding an extra <g> as a parent of an
> <svg> element (which I want due to setting up a viewport so I can use
> percentages) just so I can transform it. It seems unnecessary to me.
Yes, having 'transform' apply at least on child <svg> elements would be
quite useful. It would be similar to how 'x' and 'y' on the svg element
are specialcased.
/Erik
--
Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software
Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed